Wednesday, 20 December 2017

Cardinal Law stepped down in 2002 after journalists reported he had moved pedophile priests between parishes rather than addressing victims' claims.

The film Spotlight was later made about the allegations against dozens of priests in his Boston diocese.

After leaving Boston, Cardinal Law took a post at the Vatican.

He worked there until 2011.

The child sex abuse allegations, which covered events over a period of decades, led to hundreds of lawsuits and threatened the Boston diocese with bankruptcy.

As a result, it agreed to sell land and buildings for more than $100m (£63m) to fund legal settlements for more than 500 victims.

The scandal prompted the Vatican to draw up new plans to combat child sex abuse in the Roman Catholic Church.

Who was Cardinal Law?

Born in 1931 in Torreon, Mexico, Cardinal Law was the son of a US Air Force colonel and a musician. He graduated from Harvard University and was ordained a priest in 1961.

He soon became heavily involved in civil rights work in Mississippi and his name was included on a hit list compiled by segregationists.

In 1984, Cardinal Law was appointed Archbishop of Boston and was a high-profile figure both in Church matters and in the wider world.

He raised millions of dollars to help victims of natural disasters and worked to improve ties between Catholics and other Christian groups.

Cardinal Law held deeply traditional positions on issues such as Aids, abortion, same-sex marriage and education policy.

He stepped down as Archbishop of Boston in 2002 following a series of reports alleging the cover-up of sexual misconduct by priests exposed by the Boston Globe newspaper's investigative Spotlight team.

"It is my fervent prayer that this action may help the Archdiocese of Boston to experience the healing, reconciliation, and unity which are so desperately needed," he said at the time.

Cardinal Law went on to serve as the archpriest of the Basilica of the Santa Maria Maggiore until his retirement at the age of 80 in 2011.

A career eclipsed by scandal

Although Cardinal Bernard Law played a major role in inter-religious dialogue, serving as chair of the Bishops' Committee on Ecumenical and Interracial Affairs and on the Vatican's Commission on Religious Relations with Jews, it was his action in covering up child sexual abuse that stained his entire career.

Revelations in the Boston Globe newspaper led to the uncovering of widespread child abuse by Catholic clergy within his diocese. The newspaper was awarded the Pulitzer Prize and Cardinal Law was forced to resign as Archbishop of Boston in 2002.

Cardinal Law never faced criminal charges for his role in allowing priests accused of abusing children to remain in the church and his appointment as archpriest of the Papal Liberian Basilica of St Mary Major, effectively a second career, was perceived as adding insult to the injuries inflicted on children.

Key dates:

§1931: Born in Torreon, Mexico

§1961: Ordained a priest

§1973: Appointed bishop

§1984: Became Archbishop of Boston

§1985: Appointed cardinal

§2002: Vatican accepts his resignation

What did Spotlight do?

The investigation carried out by the Boston Globe's Spotlight team led to reports that dozens of priests who sexually abused children had been moved from parish to parish for years under Cardinal Law's tenure without informing parishioners or police.

At the time, the Church was politically powerful in Boston and the cover-up of sexual abuse by more than 70 priests in the Boston area was seen as a move aimed at protecting the institution's reputation.

However the damning reports published by the Globe resulted not only in the resignation of Cardinal Law, but the uncovering of further abuse in 102 cities in the US and 105 dioceses worldwide.

The story of the Spotlight investigation, which involved a team of four reporters, was immortalized in the 2015 film Spotlight, which won the Oscar for Best Picture.

In December 2013, Pope Francis sparked hope that the Catholic Church was (finally!) taking the scandal of clergy sexual abuse seriously. He created a group to advise him and future popes on how the church worldwide could protect children, appointing experts on the issue and even survivors of abuse to a new Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors.

Now, as of this writing four years later, that commission has lapsed into an inactive state. Its members' terms of office, as set by the group's Vatican-approved statutes, expired Dec. 17. Neither the pope nor the Vatican have made known when or if the current members will be reappointed or new members found.

That Francis has allowed this lapse to occur is worrisome. A commission without validly appointed members ceases to be a commission; its members may carry on their work but if they do, they do so as individuals without legal standing or vested authority to back them. What work could they carry on? This never should have been allowed to happen.

That the Vatican felt no need to offer an official explanation is just as worrisome, because it suggests that the protection of children is not as high a priority as statements from the Vatican say it is. That decision makers in the Vatican apparently didn't realize — or didn't care — that this lapse would be perceived negatively is also troubling. A lack of an official response sends a tone-deaf and disappointing message to Catholics and the world. It points to the causal negligence at the heart of the scandal that has plagued the church for decades and demonstrates why the church can't shake allegations that its leaders "just don't get it."

We cannot forget that less than 10 months ago, Marie Collins, an original appointee and a survivor of clergy abuse, resigned from the commission out of frustration with an intransigent Vatican bureaucracy.

We've been told not to read too much into the vacant commission. It's just a bureaucratic snafu, we're told, and it will be corrected by April, when the commission's next plenary assembly is set. The office in the Curia meant to support the work of the commission will continue its work, we've been told. These statements, meant to be assurances, sound too much like hollow promises of the kind we've been programmed to hear from church officials when it comes to the abuse of minors by clergy.

In March, Collins recalled that when she was appointed, "I said publicly that if I found what was happening behind closed doors was in conflict with what was being said to the public I would not remain. This point has come. I feel I have no choice but to resign if I am to retain my integrity." We seem to have reached a time again when private actions are not matching public statements.

The Vatican has known since Collins' resignation that the commission was suffering a credibility problem. Their bureaucratic neglect on commission memberships only exacerbates that problem. We repeat: that the Vatican didn't recognize this as a problem or doesn't care that it is a problem is very worrisome.

When Francis met with the commission for the first time in September, he praised its members, saying "Without you who brought the thing off the ground it would have been impossible to do what we have done and to do what we must still do in the Curia." We fear that with the commission empty, even for a few months, its credibility will continue to erode and "the work we still must do" won't get done.

We have noted in recent editorials that the Catholic Church as a whole has made great strides in addressing the sexual abuse of children. In many ways, the church has set up model programs and procedures to deal with this crime. But we have also warned repeatedly that as the situation improves, complacency becomes the enemy of continued progress. Complacency puts children at risk and that is something we cannot allow to happen.

PAT SAYS:

Two things have happened thisweek to remind us about the Roman Catholic Church's handling of child abuse:

1. The Arch Cover Upper - Law has died.

2. Pope Francis and the Vatican have allowed its commission on abuse to lapse.

Law was a mini monster - a creation of the greater monster - the RC institution.

Law only did what he was trained to do - put the reputation and finances of the RC institution before the innocence of the many thousands of innocent little children that have been raped and abused by generations of clerics and religious.

Law is not gone to appear before the Just God. We have no way of knowing how that Just God has dealt with him - but we can be assured that the Just God has given Law the justice he deserves.

But the Greater Monster - the RC institution we still have with us - and that monster has allowed its so-called commission into child abuse to lapse.

It was never really committed to tacking the abuse and its causes in the first place. The commission was mere window dressing - PR - to try and fool the world into thinking that something was being done.

When members of the commission came up with real challenges they were simply let go. Now the commission has been allowed to lapse - even under Francis - the great PR pope!

The Vatican wants to go back to the old ways - to business as abnormal - where mere lay people pay up, pray up and shut up - and where children and their parents are expected to offer up their sufferings (abuse) with the sufferings of Christ on the cross! "Poor Father, he had a moment of weakness". "Poor Father, the child was actually the one who led him on".

What is the answer to all of this?

Well, I'm afraid its an answer that will never be allowed to happen.

Let Italy revoke it's 1929 concordat with the Vatican and take jurisdiction over the "rogue state" - where popes, cardinals, bishops, and clergy can be brought before the courts for abuse and abuse cover-up.

Of course, that will not happen because the Vatican is too powerful and too wealthy and too friendly with so many other global monsters.

And anyway, what are 50,000 children's bodies and souls worth - against the "good" that flows from maintaining the global status quo.

141 comments:

Cardinal Law made many mistakes in his handling of pedophile priests. He acknowledge these mistakes and begged forgiveness from those who suffered because of them. He resigned his office because of these mistakes and had no responsibility for anything involving Nichiren thereafter. He died a sad lonely man, and I for one will pray that the forgiveness of God which we will all rely on will see him home. RIP I expect that there will be the usual hacks baying for blood on this occasion and using the opportunity to make moral pronouncements from their illusory high ground. All of us should pray 'God be merciful to me a sinner. Let's leave the judgment to the only one truly competent - The Lord himself.

Law made no 'mistakes' in his highly favourable dealings with sexual perverts, and child rapists, among his clergy: that old bastard, like Sean Brady, knew exactly what he was doing, which is why he went to such subterfuge to conceal from the Press (and, therefore, the wider world) just how filthy and corrupt was the institutional Roman *****!😆 (Oops!)

Leaving the ultimate judgment to God and praying for his mercy for Cardinal Law is not sufficient for Pat. He has, in his typical, predictable and unchristian manner asks for and encourage venom, hatred, bias and nastiness for the deceased Cardinal. While I acknowledge the awful failures in administration and handling of clerical abuse and the consequent harm to children, I believe that in death we should commend him to God's mercy and forgiveness, as 00.34 suggests. And I will pray too for Pat that something of Christ will find its way into his heart. I hooe too that Pat never has a moment of failure ( he's far too perfect) when he may cry out for the mercy of others and of God. Such places and moments in our lives are not pleasant.

On the matter of the lapse of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, I prefer the explanation and sentiments expressed by Marie Collins to any words, explanations or assurances issued by Vatican clerics.MMM

I saw Brian Darcy on Nolan Show last night. What a totally false man. What a gay extravaganza Carter, Nolan, Vinny, darcy and the biggest queen of all O'Donnell. Remember Elton John was once married. Not a woman in sight on Nolan Show. They think we are idiots.

'Cardinal Law made many mistakes...acknowledged them and begged forgiveness.' After all we have been through and still to go through, I find that extraordinary language to use. My feeling is that if Cardinal Law had admitted his guilt, even privately, he would never have accepted his last appointment in Rome. If he was truly sorry, then why didn't he spend the rest of his life, living in penitence and writing a thesis on how a churchman can end up doing what he did and presenting ways for others to avoid making the wrong decisions in the future?

Absolutely! - - a very important part of receiving God's forgiveness is the ability to really trust that He has forgiven you and allowing your life to move on with new hope. If your life does not move on, then you are stuck in your mire.

12:51, that 'new hope' you spoke of, does it allow for rubbing salt in the wounds of victims? Because this is orecisely what Law (and Rome) did when Law accepted Rome's reward, of archpriest of Santa Maria Maggiore.

Rome rewarded Law, compensation for his highly public (and well-deserved) humiliation. How do you thimk this must have made Law's victims feel? Can your imagination stretch this far?

Just as was suspected. Pat - how you revel in encouraging venomous, unacceptable and hate filled comments by Magna, who has come out of his drunken slumber and the 10.04 contributor. While I abhor the abuse of children, the criminal cover up and complete irresponsibility of Church leaders, the comments today do nithing to further the healing for survivors. Pat - you and your band of followers simply use anything for your own anti Catholic agenda. I once thought I'd enjoy meeting Pat but the blogging of recent weeks has made me think very differently. Pat, your interpretations are too set in stone (as is your heart) that you cannot listen to or accept other people's comments or perspectives. God have mercy on Cardinal Law and comfort all abuse survivors today

Your learning more and more each day, sadly, Pat is not in the realm of self awareness, mercy to those who failed or those who don't live up to your "expectations" (which are imperfect)! What matters at the end of our lives, as the great mystic, St. John of the Cross put it - ".. we will be judged on how we loved.. ". And ultimately that is God's prerogative - if you believe - not yours Pat, mercifully and thankfully.

From personal experience I shared on here a couple of days ago, I have absolutely no sympathy for wrongdoers in relation to safeguarding and child protection. From reading the transcripts of the enquiry into the handling of child abuse in the English Benedictine monastic schools, I continue to be horrified at how Church leaders have behaved. But Cardinal Law now has to face a more formidable judge than any of us, however we might feel he should have been dealt with for his abject failings. I’m prepared to leave it to God, in the hope that the Church and other religious groups might learn from the past. Whilst I try to be optimistic, there is much work still to be done.

13.01 In the dark night of St John of the Cross, the light of God's love shines on the soul and show it all the sins that the soul does not want to see. The soul cowers away at the utter horror of it's own depravity. Sooner or later you have to face the truth. It is better to do it in this life than the next.

Pat, where is your courage? I posted earlier today and made reference to the SHAM WEDDINGS you performed and the noted judgment of the presiding judge... NOT VICTIMLESS CRIMES....DONE FOR FINANCIAL GAIN....Too morally ashamed to publish my comment? You should be! Just pointing out your hypocrisy and arrogance....

Fr. D'arcy is an idiot - another one who believes only in his own story. Tiresome, repetitive and so worryingly confusing. A man who has lttle time for the hundreds of priests who carry out their work quietly every day, even the priests in his own Order, in all kinds of situations, who are selfless in their dedication and never seek attention. They are the true heroes.

Why does everything have to be "either /or"? Just because Fr D'Arcy is an excellent priest it doesn't mean that other priests are not being valued also. But you get the distinct impression that some posters cannot see that there is room for both and individuality of approach is fine.

Personally, as a priest myself, I am sick to the teeth of these personality priests. Apart from anything else, they have such a sleazy way of moving in and taking over the more lucrative weddings and funerals.

Anon@15:31's comment made me recall similar stories I've heard: ....young couples getting married both in the bride's church by an "outside " priest of their choice, perhaps a relative, or getting married elsewhere than their "own native" parish. I've been told both that their "own" curate/PP would either make clear they would "assist" the officiating priest, or just turn up at the ceremony in surplice garb "hovering around" clearly in expectation of financial rewards!I'm not impressed by the affluent lifestyle of many RC diocesan clergyman, and at risk of over generalised comment ask how typically representative of many RC clergymen is a very recent picture of a certain priest?MMM

16.29. As a sacristan I get very cynical about celebrity weddings with celebrity clerics and I've had to asdist and prepare for many in my life. The celeb priests think they own the particular church, the couples don't care how they behave, their choice of music often banal and secular, never turn up in time for rehearsals and almost always have to be asked for offerings. So I know how "celeb priests and couples" behave and it is very discourteous, unacceptable at times. Some couples spend 1000e on flowers alone and begrudge giving 60 to a Sacristan!!!!

MMM at 17.17. That's a very cynical view and most unfair to the majority of priests. Your comment applies only in relation to celebrity priests, of which there are a few. They turn up at everything and have little regard for the incumbent of the parish they visit. It'too flippant of you to make so disingenuous a remark.

Weddings should cost NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to perform. The reason for this is no priest should ever charge a member of ANY congregation a fee to be the recipient of one of the seven sacraments. What will you charge for next? Will relatives pay to have the Anointing of the Sick administered to a dying parent? Will the Sacrament of Reconciliation be more expensive when there are queues before Easter?No?Well, neither should there be a charge for the Sacrament of Matrimony. It is part of your job and that's it. And don't give me the old chestnut about it taking up most your day. It doesn't have to... unless you hang around for a free drink and a free meal. I remember years ago being absolutely shocked when I heard the kind of tips given for the wedding ceremony. You are already been paid to do your duty. This nonsense has got out of hand.

Very awkward Pat to do anything if a couple have a priest friend or relative who is a priest. Most priests are delighted if there's a visiting priest and facilitate with great welcome and hospitality. It's the "people" who feel they're important that sometimes cause the awkwardness alongside their celebrity cleric. But mostly there's no problem. Sometimes when a couple "use" a scenically located church, the parish charges a fee. And usually money is not an issue for such couples. I worked in a parish where one year there were 18 couples from all over the country who used our Church as it was close to a magnificent, popular country house. Most parishes in normal circumstances charge a manageable fee. I've often not taken an offering as couple didn't have much....

You shouldn't be taking ANYTHING to administer one of the seven Sacraments. Shame on you!Examine your conscience on that one and restore any money taken unlawfully or give it to a charity such as St Vincent de Paul at Christmas.

20.10: How crass and unintelligent a comment. People give offerings which are used for Church expenses etc...but you wouldn't be interested in the truth. Incidentally, St v de Paul is one of the charities I frequently support. I never take money unlawfully. A stupid comment and how much I wonder do you give to charity?

MMM 18.39 - clergy who seem affluent or wealthy are not so on their salary from a parish. They are often left an inheritance. But again, you are making huge generalised and unfair statements. And who is the certain cleric you speak of that causes you to question?

'Sex between a committed gay couple is not a sin, Fr Brian D’Arcy the celebrity priest said in an interview with 'Hot Press’. He feels 'committed love' between two people is rarely wrong. When asked whether he would see same-sex couples that are in a loving relationship as a sin he said "Did God make each person unique and individual? If your answer to this is yes, well then [did] God make a mistake when He made people gay and lesbian? Of course He didn't. God doesn't make mistakes. ... Yes sex between committed gay couples is not a sin. I think sex as recreation between anyone is not right - I don't use the word Sin.'' He added that sex in a loving [homosexual] relationship "is the closest one can get to prayer." Fr D'Arcy goes on to say to lesson the possible results of casual sex, which he thinks is wrong, condoms can be a way of preventing 'further evil' and therefore their use is not sinful. He also believes that in most cases the use of the Pill as a contraceptive is not wrong. He told the magazine "according to the Church teaching it is, but in the context of choosing a family of healthy relationships etc., etc., it could be a sin but I would think in most cases it is not a sin."

When I was at work we had a manual called"Best Practice ".If you had any doubts you consulted the manual. Providing you followed the manual no-one above could touch you. The Vatican best practice manual stated that erring priests were not to be handed over to the civil authorities. Cardinal Law and Cardinal Brady followed best practice. The reputation of the Church and the priesthood was far more important than the protection of children and families. I once had an argument with a priest who said it didn't really matter. I said..I think you will find out it does.It is a crime. Where was their conscience?

15:47, wise words. In child protection it's surely should always be the case to on the side of caution. The bishops appeared to have three things in the forefront of their minds: denial; avoiding scandal; being nice and pastoral to the offending priest. The children were way down the list of priorities.

19.45. What arrant nonsense you share. An ignorant comment from a begrudger. Get your facts right, fool thatbyou are. I know lots of busybodys like you. All nosey, opinionated and never volunteering to do anything in their parish and community. If you know anything about the New Charities Act, you'd be more informed about financial situation of priests and parishes. Couples give an offering. It helps towards Church expenses and is little compared to the exorbitant amounts given to florists, videographer, musicians, hotels, etc...Don't talk such utter crap.

If couples are foolish enough to throw exorbitant amounts of money at hairdressers, florists, photographers and God knows what else, that is their business.It does not change the truth one iota. No member of a congregation should be expected to pay to receive one of the seven Sacraments. That is a scandal which has gone unchallenged in much the same way as centuries ago there was a similar kind of scandal when members of the Faithful were expected to pay for indulgences. It was wrong then and it is wrong now and no amount of your namecalling to give me offence can change that.

21.25 - You should get your information correct before you preach from your moral high ground. Ask your local priest what the protocol is and you may be surprised. By the way you present your cimment, you seem to be a nosey busybody with a begrudging spirit. Don't get yourself into an apoplectic rage over the salary of a priest. If you're a Church goer, just don't give - simple as that. I never suggest a particular fee or elicit such from couples - but in their kindness and appreciation they gladly give an offering, many with cards of sincere gratitude and good wishes. Many such couples have often sent cards from their honeymoon. We are human after all. So, 21.25, go and find some real "issues" to concern your time, like wirking for St. V. de Paul Sicuety ir Br. Kevin's Day Care Centre. Incidentally, do you receive many callers at your door like I do frequently?....I'm glad to be able to help them from the offerings received.....

Yes!.. LOL.. That 23.53 got a bit carried away with irrelevant jibes that had nothing to do with the excellent points @21.25 whose info was completely spot on. As for deciding to describe the more informed poster as a "nosey busybody" simply because he/she had no sensible counter argument.. Why do that?!Then comes the gratuitous "advice" about how the poster should spend his time..when he knows absolutely nothing about the poster's life and charity work and donations. Honestly! Then as if he/she had run out of insults.. there follows an additional jibe hinting that the other poster is probably short of visitors!! Such a silly irrelevant response but at least it gave us a laugh I suppose. You couldn't make it up!

All the post-Vatican II popes are being canonised, and Benedict and Francis will be too, in due course. In the past it was a total rarity for a Pope to be canonised. Some of Francis' papalatrous admirers would canonise him while he's still alive, if they could get away with it.

In Enniskillen Darcy was on first name terms with all the different undertakers and he'd turn up at funerals to concelebrate. Some people had three or more priests concelebrating whereas others had just one. This led some to ask why some people got a bigger send off. This recalled the adage: High money, High Mass, Low money, Low Mass,

I read the Herald and Reporter every week and have done all my life. Never once have I seen anything to back up your wild imaginings. (You just hadn't reckoned with real Fermanagh folk regularly reading Pat's blog!You got that wrong mate)

Here's an example. This could go on all night. Just Google "Fr Darcy funeral thanks". Why cannot he just sit in the congregation. Why be clericalist. http://notices.irishtimes.com/acknowledgement/drew/2410727

Fr. D'arcy attended many funerals in Enniskillen. He was merely filling a vacuum in that parish because the present PP spends every waking hour with the other faiths. Nothing ever happens in the C o I cathedral with Fr. P O Reilly being present......he actually favours those of other religions to his own catholic flock. It's absolutely disgusting. Enniskillen was once a great parish but it's being chipped away bit by bit and handed over to those from other faiths.

We were wondering if Kieran, the Kiwi had arrived to spend his Christmas with the Little Brothers yet in Larne?(You remember him...very loquacious New Zealander from a few months ago?)He kept threatening to come and spend time in the bungalow with the others. You might have to squeeze up a bit boys if the two bedrooms are already occupied! Could be fun..

The disgraced cardinal got a better send off than the Tuam babies. All these enabling bishops such as Brady, Daneels, Joe Duffy, Murphy O'Connor should have been laicised. Today's events were a serious mistake by Francis, who ignores protocol when it suits him and whose spin machine is usually very effective. It's going down very badly in America.

20.35 - It is horrendous what happened in Tuam and in many other places in our country. Sadly, society - Church, State, gardai, the judiciary, ordinary folk - all knew what was hidden behind high walls. We approved together in silent whispers, shamefully. I don't believe in vengance as I believe in a just and merciful God who will treat each person as his/her life deserves. God ultimately is our judge. To engage in condemnation of Cardinal Brady and Cardinal Law will not facilitate any healing for survivors. They need our support and kindness.

Pat, thank God you are no longer part of our Church. You are heartless. You are not God, just another demi god like the ones you condemn. Even worse in your horrible nastiness and self righteousness. No Christ is born in your heart, sadly.

No Pat, you joined Pat's Church. Many excellent priests with a passion for truth, justuce, equality, women's involvement in Church, compassion for the poor and vulnerable remained with their vocation within the Catholic Church and have given great witness to Christ and his gospel and have inspired much change in their communities. I call that dedication "courageous" because they fought the system quietly from within. They are truly Gid's anointed alo g with the people anointed through their dedication and selfless hiving. Don't paint us all with one sweep, please!

I see my comment on wedding "fees" has provoked some reaction and "enlightenment ".I agree with comment regarding the wedding as simply one of the services and part of a resident clerics everyday functions/roles to his parish community to be provided without any expectation of financial rewards. Payments and their expectations or protocol "outside" a couple's home parish are contentious and maybe a general diocesan ruling might be helpful. When I read here of "sacristan" comments on financial expectations it underlines the whole unchristian moneygrabbing attitudes. I've just checked and found fairly standard fees in place for civil wedding ceremonies. Could we ever envisage the RC hierarchy doing likewise?MMM

MMM - Civil marriage solemnisers cost 300/400 euro which is more than the priest ever receives. The priest has to declare all income and have names of donors who give offerings for weddings, funeral, baptisms. The new Charities act requires such information to be on a Parish data base. The income -very little in some places does not go entirely to the individual priest. It is divided between celebrant, parish and a central Diocesan fund out of which a priest is paid a monthly salary. I think you should inform yourself correctly before sowing falsehoods and misinformation. It's a disservice to priests. Is there anything wrong in a sacristan receiving a salary? The offerings given are small.I think your use of the word "moneygrabbing" is most unfair, unjust and dishonest. I give my portion of stipends to Br. Kevin or to the many people who knock on my door looking for help. So I make no apology for the small fees I receive. My fees are totally transparent, accounted for and accurately recorded. I am surprised with you MMM as you are generally more circumspect, insightful, reasonable and respectful.

MMM - Civil marriage solemnisers cost 300/400 euro which is more than the priest ever receives. The priest has to declare all income and have names of donors who give offerings for weddings, funeral, baptisms. The new Charities act requires such information to be on a Parish data base. The income -very little in some places does not go entirely to the individual priest. It is divided between celebrant, parish and a central Diocesan fund out of which a priest is paid a monthly salary. I think you should inform yourself correctly before sowing falsehoods and misinformation. It's a disservice to priests. Is there anything wrong in a sacristan receiving a salary? The offerings given are small.I think your use of the word "moneygrabbing" is most unfair, unjust and dishonest. I give my portion of stipends to Br. Kevin or to the many people who knock on my door looking for help. So I make no apology for the small fees I receive. My fees are totally transparent, accounted for and accurately recorded. I am surprised with you MMM as you are generally mire circumspect, insightful, reasonable and respectful.

I do not in any way attempt to sow misinformation. I simply question what I see and disagree with. You may well practise integrity but it's obvious many others don't. As for your claim of 300/400€ for civil marriage solemnisers please quote/show your evidence. The N. Ire web page refers to fees of initially £22 per person for formal notice of marriage plus £36 for marriage at a Registery Office in ordinary weekday office hours plus £4 for marriage certificate. (If I have misunderstood this someone please clarify)Frankly having talked to young relatives about this I'm disgusted at the whole moneymaking contrivance of the marriage industry including many of the clergy.MMM

You are right MMM!There's no doubt that it's a racket, but like all moneymaking rackets, it will not be relinquished without a battle. Sometimes we should be thankful for people who call a spade a spade!

Thank you Anon@11:45.As we can see here, there are certainly individuals quick to defend the 'milk cow' (or is it the goose with golden eggs!?) that the marriage industry has become for many clerics, and, it would seem, the other 'hanger ons'. Sacristans expecting a backhander of 60€, or 'a ton'. I'm appalled. And the mealy mouthed justifications reveal their attitudes.In truth when reading some of these comments I'm obliged to wonder to what extent such contributors are simply financially selfish hard hearts; completely out of touch with reality and common decency, or whether they're absolutely naive and just unthinkingly see payments as the expected 'done-thing' because it's always been so.Whatever: I'm glad some reaction has been provoked and it's encouraging to see that some regard the marriage ceremony as a significant rite of passage with the same pastoral support willingly provided as for other milestones, and without any expectation of exceptional payments.MMM

There is a very good article about Cardinal Law in The New Yorker by James Carroll. Apparently Law placed his hands on the head of one of the victims and bound him under the seal of the confessional to keep silent about the matter.

I agree with the posters who said members of the congregation should not have to pay a priest to administer the Sacrament of Matrimony.No price should be put on something priceless.No matter how rich the couple are that should be the one part of the day that is God's free gift to them with His blessing. The priest accordingly is present to represent Christ exactly as in other Sacraments eg Confession. It takes a brave person to challenge a long-standing abuse but we do have posters of that calibre it seems.We should be grateful for them.

@22.38 I should have thought it was the very opposite of "sick anticlericalism"The poster is correct when he/she says nobody should have to pay to receive one of the Sacraments. It's a ridiculous abuse of young couples to be made to feel that they should be paying for something which God offers freely. No excuses.

Reply to 21 Dec 12.51When forgiven, it's true that we can move on with new hope but our first work must be with those we hurt. Was it St Matthew who said to Jesus that he would give back four fold to anyone he robbed? We cannot just move on to comfortable new work and largely ignore the victims many of whom have been called liars half their lives.

The poster giving out drivel about having to pay money for one of the seven sacraments repeatedly and ad nauseam needs a brain transplant. Where does (s)he think the money for lighting, heating, furnishings comes from?

No, I definitely disagree with you on that one.. Certainly heat etc has to be paid for in the same way as it is paid for any other occasion when the church building is open eg Sunday Mass or Confessions but that does not alter the fact that the Sacrament of Matrimony should NOT have to be specifically paid for as if it were somehow an exception. It's not but I can tell that those posters have really struck a nerve. Too much to lose, eh guys?

And you! - sir or madam @ 1.50---you, who thought it acceptable to say that another person needed "a brain transplant" need to learn some manners and keep a civil tongue in your head. Your response was nasty and disparaging in the extreme.

Fr Darcy is very well spoken of by those to whom he has ministered. He has written honest and uplifting books.As regards priests' income, there's very few of them who could not have earned in their prime far more than they received as priests from parish collections and other stipends. But they did not become priests in hopes of material wealth. Only those who are without more than a basic income could consider a priest's emoluments to be worthy of envy. There are still many in the congregation who consider 50p on the Sunday plate to be generous while at the same time spending x100 on Friday pub night. Martin Millbush